It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why teaching creationism is a horrible idea.

page: 3
1
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by SGTChas
 


Two points on that Bill Gates quote.

1. It was picked out of a book he wrote called "The Long Road Ahead". In context (below) the article is about how important great and passionate teachers are to make the subjects they're teaching interesting. He certainly is not advocating Intelligent Design.

2. Bill Gates is a software engineer. Not a biologist. He is in no more a position to be taken as authority than Pee Wee Herman.


We have all had teachers who made a difference. I had a great chemistry teacher in high school who made his subject immensely interesting. Chemistry seemed enthralling compared to biology. In biology, we were dissecting frogs - just hacking them to pieces, actually - and our teacher didn't explain why. My chemistry teacher sensationalized his subject a bit and promised that it would help us understand the world. When I was in my twenties, I read James D. Watson's "Molecular Biology of the Gene" and decided my high school experience had misled me. The understanding of life is a great subject. Biological information is the most important information we can discover, because over the next several decades it will revolutionize medicine. Human DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created. It seems amazing to me now that one great teacher made chemistry endlessly fascinating while I found biology totally boring. (Gates, The Road Ahead, Penguin: London, Revised, 1996 p. 228)


As for Paul Davies, lol. Have you even bothered to look him up on the internet? Here, I'll even post a link.
Paul Davies homepage

Oh ho! What's this on the front page?


To set the record straight, I am a fierce opponent of so-called "Intelligent Design", and I devote a whole chapter of my book Cosmic Jackpot (published under the title The Goldilocks Enigma in the UK) to denouncing it. I campaigned strongly in Australia against ID


There's also a PDF you can download which explains why he believes ID should NOT be taught.

Granted, this retraction is not in reference to the quote you posted per~sey, but I think it makes his stance on the subject VERY clear.

Shameful, SGTChas. Just shameful. What would your god say if he saw you lying like that?


Oh, and btw... as far as Michael Behe? He has about as much credibility as "Dr" Kent Hovind. You know, the one who got his degree from the unaccredited Patriot University and is serving 10 (at least) years in prison for tax fraud.

I think his testimony, under oath, during the Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial pretty much says it all.

Ironic, isn't it? That the Kenneth Miller, who helped drive the nail in the coffin of ID (as well as many other plaintiffs in the case), were themselves Christian.

[edit on 13-6-2008 by Lasheic]




posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 12:19 PM
link   


Perhaps you might find the latest discoveries of string & and quantum physics instructive if true science is of interest. Then you might ask yourself why so many Ivy League Physicist are becoming Christians?


Why should Ivy league physicists,after studying string theory and quantum mechanics,decide on becoming christian??

Why should they not become acolytes of Eskimo or Hindu religion?

In fact doesn't quantum holography detract from the abrahamic god opinion and instead point toward the concept that the universe is one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively?

No offence ,but your post sounds a little like religious propaganda to me.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by miriam0566
 


let me explain. dna is a complex form with no "ladder" of complexity. its simply there or it isnt. we dont have examples of dna gradually becoming more complex

We actually have that going on right now in our bodies each time a mutation occurs. New genetic information can be added, or existing information can be lost. Sometimes it's just re-arranged in a new pattern. The vast majority of the time these mutations are of absolutely no consequence. Sometimes they are beneficial to the organism, sometime they detrimental. But in either case, these mutations are copied again and end up either increasing the amount of genes or decreasing them over time. This doesn't necessarily translate into the complexity of the creature though. For instance, humans have about 25,000 genes, but 95% of that is junk. The Puffer Fish on the other hand has around 21,000 genes and almost NO junk DNA at all (which is something we should expect to see across all species in the case of intelligent creation). Whereas a species of lowly amoeba has around 200 times the amount of genes that humans have.

The subject is far more complex than I can go into here space wise or accurately, so I would point you towards a series of videos by Don Exodus entitled How evolution works

so the question is, can dna form from natural reactions (natural meaning purely physical and chemical reactions without outside manipulations)

Abiogenesis is still a very incomplete field, and we still don't have enough conclusive evidence to point to any of the competing theories about some of the later processes being more accurate than the others, but yes, we have preformed tests in the lab which show how organic compounds of life can indeed come together on their own.

For more infomration, check out Don's other video How Abiogenesis works



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Lasheic
 


Aways love the taken out of context quotes on legislation by the judicial used as proof of the the point the court was biased towards to begin with... Sort of like a dog chasing its tail - but as has been pointed out - at least the dog keeps its end in sight. I just love this inane tactic by elitists of all stripes...Circular logic extraordinaire! I applaud you! Your answer was given by 85 scientist here:

DeWolf, West, and Luskin, "Intelligent Design Will Survive Kitzmiller v. Dover."

Of course Mr. Davies backed off his ever increasingly "Christian" sounding pronouncements; he was castigated by the obviously open minded like you for quotes like this:



“It is as if the entire universe is nothing more than a thought in the mind of God.” Paul Davies; famous cosmologist, quantum physicist & materialistic naturalist


As for Doctor Dino, why don't you look up the testimony at HIS trial - I agree with his lawyers take that the charges were a government hack job; PLUS the IRS is a non -ratified organized crime outfit anyway.

Hey, I'll leave you with another quote your superior intellect might enjoy:



“Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world. The chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy.” God and the Astronomers; Robert Jastrow, NASA astronomer and a confessed agnostic; 1978.



[edit on 6/14/2008 by SGTChas]

[edit on 6/14/2008 by SGTChas]

[edit on 6/14/2008 by SGTChas]



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grambler
You say life operates independently of physical forms, but thats not true. Every action any thing living has ever taken has been guided by the laws of physics.


im sorry i didnt clarify this better.

take it from a more philosophical point of view. everything in the universe "does" things because of physics. if a rock is hurling through space, its because something pushed it or because it was flung. a sun is a chemical reaction that is brought on because the conditions dictated it to be so (however complex those those conditions may be). this is nature. substances reacting with substances, matter with matter.

life is the first "substance" or "object" in the universe that is capable of creating its own action. tons of reasons why, but when you break it down, it is unique because it makes choices.

its adds a level of complexity that boggles the mind. a star does not move at will, it does not search for food. it does not have a need to survive. all its action are reactions to other things and even then on a very simplistic level. there is never a decision involved. comet never stops to consider where its going.

its this point of decision that separates life from dead matter.


Your saying life is unique, and then your defining that as the only thing complex. Hence this is not a testable theory, and is not science.


well life is unique. and yes, i would venture to say it is the most complex thing we know. but it is testable.

observation is very much testable and is a pilar of science.


But you yourself admit that the star is natural. And if you don't then your back to the conclusion everything is designed, which agains makes your observations nontestable and therefore not science.
i dont understand this statement. if something is concluded to be designed, why does it make it unscientific?

nature is reaction. action - reaction, thats it.

i would define design as the manipulation of reactions so as to accomplish something. so a computer is designed to make calculations using metal and plastic and electricity. a painting is designed to display an image or convey and emotion using oil and canvas.

in my opinion (i could be wrong), thats why paintings dont appear randomly in random places. they are a manipulation of material for a purpose. computers dont form when rocks smash together, they arent a simple reaction, they are a manipulation.

life shares this charateristic of extra complexity. this is something that is testable. life has the ability to decide, which is absent in all other forms of matter. it has a concept of death which too is absent in all other forms of life.

i dont understand how these things are untestable...



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 05:18 PM
link   

As to rather I have defined evidence of design, not completely. But it doesn't matter, because there is no thing that exists that could have theoretically not been designed. Operating in your vision that all powerful creators are possible, then s/he could have created anything. I can't prove that an all powerful creator didn't create everything. In fact, no one ever will be able to do that. But we can use science to show how things develope, etc.


thats an interesting statement. and its true, someone could conjecture that everything is designed. i personally dont believe that. even if god did create physics, there is no evidence to suggest that every particle or photon was hand carved by him. the beginning of the universe set things into motion, the direct manipulation of everything is not required by said god.

but you bring up something else that is really interesting. you say that it cannot be proven that an all powerful creator didn't create everything.

someone (i believe it was melatonin) posted a link about a dragon.

basically a guy has a dragon in his garage, but when people come to see it, it turns out its invisible. they use powder to see the footsteps but the dragon always floats. try to spray paint it, but its incorporeal. etc etc etc

one cannot prove that the dragon does or doesnt exist, but that doesnt mean that dragon does in fact exist.

similiar comments can be made about loch nes (sp?), bigfoot, etc etc

but there is a problem when applying this argument to god. you see if the universe had a beginning, then something had to have caused that beginning. so something had to be there before.

a dragon in the garage is inconsequential. whether or not it exists has no bearing on the universe. saying god doesnt exist raises the big question of how the universe came into existance. so its not the same situation. (again doesnt prove god, but the point im making is that claiming there is a god isnt necessarily "illogical")



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 05:23 PM
link   

The burden is on creationists, because you're saying there is evidence that life HAD to be designed. So all we have to do is show that life could have gotten more complex through evolution, which study after study have done.


not quite. 2 problems.....

the "first" forms of life in themselves are complex. neither the fossil record nor has it been shown in a lab that intermediaries exist. even a virus is substantially more complex than a simple chemical structure.

there isnt anything (at least that we know of) that's half alive. maybe a rock that searches for food, but doesnt procreate? or a bit of chemical that procreates but doesnt have dna or rna. basically even evolution and biogenesis have to admit that at one point there was no life and then the next *pop* there it is. complete whole, with a nice little written manual to tell it what to do.

if life was a progressive thing, you think there would be evidence of something leading up to the first life, but there isnt. it just appears. i think thats very good evidence that life was designed. (by god, aliens, seeds, whatever, we arent talking about conclusions, just evidence)

second problem is the fossil record.

the major hiccup is transitional forms. ID'ers say that if evolution is true, then there should be an infinite number of transitional forms. which makes sense right? if an animal evolves slowly, then you should be able to see very very small incremental changes in the fossil record. in fact, if you had these incremental stages, it would probably be hard to define and catergorize them. when does a parahippus become a merychippus? and when does a merychippus become a pliohippus? but thats not what we see. we see clearly defined animals.

this lack of incremental stages has made many evolutionists switch from the gradualism hypothesis to punctuated equilibrium. but now there is a problem. now relation between 2 sets of bones becomes conjecture. it is no longer solid proof. gradualism provide solid proof because you can see it. you can say "fish developed legs from fins" because you would be able to look at the bones and see the slowly change. but that not what the fossil record shows. it shows, fin -> bone fin -> bone nub -> leg. where are all the limbs in-between? random mutations can explain this, but can you prove these mutations? is there some form of proof that a merychippus "horse" is a newer version of parahippus? its conjecture. saying that they are similiar and share many quailities is one step to building a hypothesis, but it is not proof.

my point is, if the fossil record showed gradualism, then it can be proven that one animal evolved into another. but it doesnt, its very abrupt.

yes mutation is a logical arguement, but its not proof. so the book is not closed when it comes to evolution simply because there are holes, lots of them. animals disappearing. new ones just popping up out of nowehere. and the whole thing is put together by saying, well they are similiar, so they must be related.

if one cannot irrefutably prove that one creature is related to another, then i see that as evidence of design.


Even if we can't prove how life is created yet, its a work in progress, and we are far closer now then when we started. Besides, even if we never can prove how life was created, it AT BEST would only show that initial life would have been created, but then evolution took over. Proving "life" was created doesn't prove we were. The evidence would still support that we evolved from the initial creation.


those are big if's. the beginning of life i believe is little closer than when they started. they have several thoeries now but nothing concrete. but even if initial life was created, now why the difference between human and animal? questions keep popping up.

basically after this incredibly long post, what id like to say is this. you cant close the books until you are absolutely sure. to say creation or ID is illogical and unprovable it to ignore alot. to say it is unscientific is also to ignore alot.

there are certain illogical conclusions that evolutionist arrive at because they refuse even the possibility of a god. but that raises the question, it that because of scientific proof or personal preference?



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 05:28 PM
link   
so when a animal or plant changes it characteristics to adapt to its changing surroundings thats becuz something created it to adapt? isnt adapting evolving? or is that too created to act to any an all stimulus to change to a more befitting means of opperation?

we change to exsist more easier in life. Why would we change if we were designed in the 1st place? whats that called then to change from one's original design?

Could of sworn that was evolution/adapting.

i could see how you could say our basic elements were created/ designed. But ourselves, we are made up of trillions upon trillions of other lifeforms.

We are like worlds ourselves. we harbor a plain of exsistence that other lifeforms utilize and adapt with.... We evolve throughout our lifetime to die.



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Trance Optic
so when a animal or plant changes it characteristics to adapt to its changing surroundings thats becuz something created it to adapt? isnt adapting evolving? or is that too created to act to any an all stimulus to change to a more befitting means of opperation?


micro evolution and macro evolution have a world of differences

birds are a great example. the beak might change size, the plummage might change, but all evidence says that that bird will still be a bird.

even the "transitional form" of the reptile bird makes utterly no sense. the dinosaur shape is nowhere near suited for flying. the shear amount of changes needed to make a dinosaur in to a bird and the lack of the many more transitional forms needed should be enough to put that theory to rest.



posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 06:54 AM
link   
reply to post by miriam0566
 




basically after this incredibly long post, what id like to say is this. you cant close the books until you are absolutely sure. to say creation or ID is illogical and unprovable it to ignore alot. to say it is unscientific is also to ignore alot.

there are certain illogical conclusions that evolutionist arrive at because they refuse even the possibility of a god. but that raises the question, it that because of scientific proof or personal preference?


You agree that something needs to be testable to be scientific, right? Then explain to me again how this is testable? You originally said that it was testable through observation, and that that if something could be shown to be complex that wasn't life, it would disprove your hypothesis. I give the example of a star (which you admit is natural and not designed. You then say that while it appears to be complex. it really isn't. You differentiate this from life, by saying life is actually complex as opposed to just appearing complex because it has manipulation of physical laws.

Hence, you are basically saying that you define complexity as something that manipulates physical laws, which only life does. Therefore, I can't test your hypothesis through observation. So if we go back to your original claim about how this can be testable and replace the word complex with your definition of complex, this is what we get: If something can be shown to have the characteristics of manipulating physical laws (which only life have) that is not alive, it will disprove the hypothesis. Basically, show me something alive that is not alive. This is impossible. Therefore, your hypothesis is not testable, and is therefore not science and shouldn't be taught as so.

Stars are complex. Maybe less so than life, but complex nevertheless. The threshold for disproving wasn't show me something more complex, it was show me anything complex that wasn't created. Therefore, this either disproves your hypothesis, or proves it non testable

As for the claim that evolutionists refuse to even believe that God could exist, thats not true. Even Richard Dawkins admits that he cannot be certain God doesn't exist, there is just no evidence for it.


but there is a problem when applying this argument to god. you see if the universe had a beginning, then something had to have caused that beginning. so something had to be there before.


Oh really? Then explain this

someone could conjecture that everything is designed. i personally dont believe that. even if god did create physics, there is no evidence to suggest that every particle or photon was hand carved by him. the beginning of the universe set things into motion, the direct manipulation of everything is not required by said god.

You are obviously saying here that there could be some photons, etc could have came into existence without God. If one thing can exist without directly being designed then everything can be. You said earlier that you would agree that a star was natural and not created, but how can that be. According to you, if something exists, it had to be created.

Also on this point, if everything that has a beginning had to be created, who created the creator? And again, if you are saying this you are starting out with the assumption that everything was created. Hence, we can't test your theory based on observation as you suggest because there is nothing to compare to, everything is designed, so how can I point to something complex that wasn't designed?

You may be 100% right about God, but unless you can test it using the scientific method, then it is not science, and should be taught in religion and philosophy classes instead of science class.



posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by AveIMil

Originally posted by Titen-SxullThe question of where life (and likely all the matter and energy in the Universe) originally came from will never be answered because none of us were there...


Yeah, nice logic my not-so-intelligent fellow. Does this mean you cannot prove anything that occurred before your own birth, because you weren’t there? Does this mean science can’t explain what happened to the dinosaurs and how they lived, because we weren’t there?

Sure, we might never find the answers to certain questions, but I’m damn certain the question of how life originated, which has NOTHING to do with Evolution but abiogenesis, will be solved within 50 years.


Originally posted by Titen-SxullHonestly both theories have the same logical inconsistency, that inanimate groupings of matter seem to have sprung spontaneously to life (whether by luck or act of some God), until we invent the time machine and go back to find out (not likely) the mystery will remain the question won't be answered.


Hey again, I see your lack of understanding of evolution still shines through. Evolution does not deal with the origins of life, evolution explains, yeah, the evolution of life. It explains the diversity of life we see on Earth.

Check abiogenesis for a scientific understanding of the origins of life. It’s still very rough, though. But are you going to push God of the gaps?

Please show me a logical inconsistency in evolution, pretty please!


Originally posted by Titen-SxullEven if life were created in a lab I wouldn't be convinced 100% of evolution because who's to say early Earth was anything like a lab or that the life they create has any likeness to the life on early earth...


If they create a similar environment to the early Earth conditions and manage to produce life in a lab you still won’t accept it as a good explanation for the origins of life on Earth? Then what will you believe? You’ll continue having faith in your silly God?


Originally posted by Titen-SxullI don't think we'll ever know for sure, and its better that way, the mystery is good for us, it keeps life interesting and leaves the origins of the Universe and life open to personal interpretation, so believe what you want, science/religion will never prove anything


So what I gather from this is that life is only interesting if we don’t know about things? Basically every modern technological device you make use of has been invented because humans have a drive to understand and explain things in the natural world. Not because we impair our selves by simply giving up and saying “ah, we can’t really know or prove anything anyway, we might as well not to do jack shiat and wait to die”.


I shall clarify... I used Evolution as an umbrella term for the mainstream scientific view of life's beginning and the evolution of said life... I never said that nothing could be proved merely that I don't think a definitive answer on this question will ever be found or will ever be necessary to fulfill our lives, it is beneficial to have some enigmas left unanswered... As for logical inconsistencies in evolution I was using evolution as an umbrella term for what you called abiogenesis (which, life from non-life is, in fact, an inconsistency as far as I know) also the lack of millions of transitional forms, the fossil record should read like a flip book not a slide-show unless sciences idea of evolution as gradual is to be altered... I admit I am far from an expert, or as you put it, "not-so-intelligent" ...

While I certainly think science can tell us about a great many things I think that 13.7 billion years (how old the Universe supposedly is) is a long time and to say that our scientists already have even an inkling of an answer to what happened is arrogant, time is as vast as the Universe itself, we cannot claim to have a definitive answer for the birth of the Universe yet...

I do not believe in a "silly God" though my opinions on whether there is a God and the nature of said God have changed throughout my life I do not ever recall believing in a silly God... I think you mistook my view. Regardless of evidence people are going to continue believing what they want to believe. I think that we should seek the answers, but I do not think that we should or will find them all, a world without mystery is a sad and terrible place indeed



[edit on 15-6-2008 by Titen-Sxull]



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Grambler
explain to me again how this is testable? You originally said that it was testable through observation, and that that if something could be shown to be complex that wasn't life, it would disprove your hypothesis. I give the example of a star (which you admit is natural and not designed. You then say that while it appears to be complex. it really isn't. You differentiate this from life, by saying life is actually complex as opposed to just appearing complex because it has manipulation of physical laws.

Hence, you are basically saying that you define complexity as something that manipulates physical laws, which only life does. Therefore, I can't test your hypothesis through observation. So if we go back to your original claim about how this can be testable and replace the word complex with your definition of complex, this is what we get: If something can be shown to have the characteristics of manipulating physical laws (which only life have) that is not alive, it will disprove the hypothesis. Basically, show me something alive that is not alive. This is impossible. Therefore, your hypothesis is not testable, and is therefore not science and shouldn't be taught as so.


it is testable. computers, phones, cooking pan, painting, pencil, a spear, hammer, robot. these are all things that manipulate physical laws to accomplish something. none of them are alive. we KNOW they all are designed

do any of these objects appear naturally? no.
do we see objects that do appear naturally that share the the same characteristics as these objects? no.
does life share these characteristics? yes.

i still fail to see how that is not testable to you.


As for the claim that evolutionists refuse to even believe that God could exist, thats not true. Even Richard Dawkins admits that he cannot be certain God doesn't exist, there is just no evidence for it.


if those are the conclusions he has reached then fine.

the fault of mine was to make such a general statement. my apologies.



but there is a problem when applying this argument to god. you see if the universe had a beginning, then something had to have caused that beginning. so something had to be there before.


Oh really? Then explain this


someone could conjecture that everything is designed. i personally dont believe that. even if god did create physics, there is no evidence to suggest that every particle or photon was hand carved by him. the beginning of the universe set things into motion, the direct manipulation of everything is not required by said god.

You are obviously saying here that there could be some photons, etc could have came into existence without God. If one thing can exist without directly being designed then everything can be. You said earlier that you would agree that a star was natural and not created, but how can that be. According to you, if something exists, it had to be created.


i dont see where you are coming to that from my statement.

what creates a photon? (as far as i know a photon is created when it is emitted from an object, i could be 100% wrong, please correct me if i am)

if there is a process in which a photon is created, then what guides that process? physics right? if god created physics, then why handmake everything?

billiards illustration. god creates the balls and a giant table. he then rights a set of laws

-when certain balls collide, they bounce off each other
-others explode when they collide
-others merge
-others connect
-others generate other balls by changing the balls it collides with.
-some change color
etc etc etc

run the simulation and it will go, each ball following the instructions given to it. some of the balls merge to make bigger balls, some explode making holes in the table etc etc. is god directly responsible for the huge merged ball that has 15 colors? not really, he just made the laws for it.....

same goes for suns... do suns just inexplicably *pop* into existance? no, there is a gravity well that becomes denser and denser until there is an ignition. its physics.

yes if god created the universe, yes he technically created the sun, but in that he created the nature that is responsible for the sun developing "naturally"


Also on this point, if everything that has a beginning had to be created, who created the creator?

i find that to be the most unscientific question ever. (not a dig on you, i just do)

can something come from nothing? the obvious answer is no.

therefore something has to have ALWAYS existed otherwise there would have been nothing yesterday, nothing today, and nothing tomorrow. that one is logic.

i think and eternal universe that never had a beginning is perfectly logical, incorrect, but logical.

i say incorrect because evidence points to the universe having a beginning. so what caused that beginning?



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by miriam0566
micro evolution and macro evolution have a world of differences


Nope. They are exactly the same thing, just on different time-scales. Enough "micro" evolution causes "macro" evolution. Just like adding single grains of sand to a beach does the same thing as adding truck-fulls, it just takes longer.



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by dave420

Originally posted by miriam0566
micro evolution and macro evolution have a world of differences


Nope. They are exactly the same thing, just on different time-scales. Enough "micro" evolution causes "macro" evolution. Just like adding single grains of sand to a beach does the same thing as adding truck-fulls, it just takes longer.


so, when a creature evolves from a 4 legged creature to a 6, the 2 new legs grow in gradually over a long long period of time?



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by miriam0566
 


Please, at least try to learn a bit about genetics before trying to destroy it. It would save you from showing everyone the limits of your knowledge in such an unfortunate (for you) way.

As you clearly don't know, please read about what a phenotype is, what a genotype is, and how they relate. Pay specific attention to how they work, which is not at all similar to LEGO. Once you've understood that, you can answer your own question.



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 03:19 AM
link   
again, i ask the question. when a species is evolving something like a leg. does it start out as a nub and gradually grow in?

yes the phenotype was a lovely read but it didnt answer my question. it explains "micro" evolution. but "macro", big changes cannot be explained by this



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by miriam0566
 


For someone in the middle of a debate about evolution, I shouldn't have to point out some very basic fundamentals of biology. Surely you should at least try to understand evolution before you wade in to a discussion about it. If you don't know how legs evolve, may I suggest you read up on it?



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by dave420
 


and thats the best you can do? try to insult me?

show me a species in the fossil record that has a half developed leg that was in the middle of "evolving". anything?

you wont find any. simple as that. either they have the leg or they dont. you wont ever find a spider with 6 legs on the way to having 8

learn to answer the argument before you attack personally



posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 08:07 AM
link   
Teaching Creationism is a great idea because it gives the student a sense of morality and the principle fact that humanity is not God. We did not create ourselves! There is an Arbiter that will judge us, so it is not OK to do whatever we like even if it is a wicked act. Furthermore atheists will NEVER be able to tell us how the first piece of matter came into existence. Our human nature frees us in that we are free to expand cerebral thought, BUT our humanity also limits us. We will NEVER ascertain how matter came to be because one of the laws of time and space infinity is that you cannot explain a supernatural event by natural means.
Creationism not only talks or creation but also encourages the noblest of virtues: sincerity, justice, faith, philanthropy, heroism and love. So of couse the Biblical account of Creation should be taught in schools. It not only gives an answer to how the beginning came to be; it also embosses a moral code on the student. The aforementioned virtues will promote peace, love, understanding and knowledge in any society that embraces Creationism. Evolution can not be completely correct in that there has to be some type of life-form that started the whole evolutionary trail. How did the beginning arrive? The evolutionist and atheist have no answer!



posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chief O
Teaching Creationism is a great idea because it gives the student a sense of morality and the principle fact that humanity is not God. We did not create ourselves! There is an Arbiter that will judge us, so it is not OK to do whatever we like even if it is a wicked act. Furthermore atheists will NEVER be able to tell us how the first piece of matter came into existence. Our human nature frees us in that we are free to expand cerebral thought, BUT our humanity also limits us. We will NEVER ascertain how matter came to be because one of the laws of time and space infinity is that you cannot explain a supernatural event by natural means.
Creationism not only talks or creation but also encourages the noblest of virtues: sincerity, justice, faith, philanthropy, heroism and love. So of couse the Biblical account of Creation should be taught in schools. It not only gives an answer to how the beginning came to be; it also embosses a moral code on the student. The aforementioned virtues will promote peace, love, understanding and knowledge in any society that embraces Creationism. Evolution can not be completely correct in that there has to be some type of life-form that started the whole evolutionary trail. How did the beginning arrive? The evolutionist and atheist have no answer!



WOW. You have A LOT of reading to do, that's all I have to say!



(Ok, maybe not ALL I have to say)
Before you even suggest that I need to read the Bible, I already have a couple times over. I actually used to be a young earth creationist myself, when I was about 14 or 15. I held that idea for about 2 or so years. I kept finding more and more inconsistencies within teachings from various denominations that didn't agree with each other, it became clear that something was amiss. I had always loved science, but rarely kept up to pace with what was going on. As I became more aware of the major differences in beliefs that are supposed to be in the same root religion, I got more interested in science again. Needless to say, science had what religion didn't, and that was evidence. Not 100%, that's impossible, but it's better than none at all.


[edit on 28-8-2008 by OnionCloud]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join